From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Williamson v. Greenberg

Appellate Term of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 13, 2011
2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 50700 (N.Y. App. Term 2011)

Opinion

2010-1170 N C DR.

Decided April 13, 2011.

Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Nassau County, Second District (Donald Birnbaum, J.), entered October 9, 2009. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $3,000.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

PRESENT: NICOLAI, P.J., TANENBAUM and LaCAVA, JJ.


In this small claims action, plaintiff seeks to recover damages from defendant, a plastic surgeon, after she underwent Botox treatment in his office. She alleges that defendant and his staff misrepresented the nature of the procedure that she was to undergo. After a nonjury trial, the District Court awarded her the principal sum of $3,000.

The decision of a fact-finding court should not be disturbed upon appeal unless it is obvious that the court's conclusions could not be reached under any fair interpretation of the evidence ( see e.g. Claridge Gardens v Menotti, 160 AD2d 544). This standard applies with even greater force to judgments rendered in the Small Claims Part of the court given the limited standard of review (UDCA 1807; see Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125, 126). Furthermore, the determination of the trier of fact as to issues of credibility is given substantial deference, as the trial court's opportunity to observe and evaluate the testimony and demeanor of the witnesses affords it a better perspective from which to assess their credibility ( see e.g. Vizzari v State of New York, 184 AD2d 564; Kincade v Kincade, 178 AD2d 510, 511).

The District Court credited plaintiff's testimony regarding the circumstances surrounding her treatment, and her testimony was not contradicted by any defense witnesses with knowledge of those circumstances. As the District Court's findings and conclusions are supported by the record, we are of the view that the judgment provided the parties with substantial justice according to the rules and principles of substantive law (UDCA 1807; Ross v Friedman, 269 AD2d 584; Williams, 269 AD2d at 126). Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

Nicolai, P.J., Tanenbaum and LaCava, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Williamson v. Greenberg

Appellate Term of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 13, 2011
2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 50700 (N.Y. App. Term 2011)
Case details for

Williamson v. Greenberg

Case Details

Full title:MARION WILLIAMSON, Respondent, v. DR. STEPHEN T. GREENBERG, M.D., FACS…

Court:Appellate Term of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Apr 13, 2011

Citations

2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 50700 (N.Y. App. Term 2011)